OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in the knee joint movement pattern of a forward lunge could be quantified in healthy subjects and in anterior cruciate ligament deficient subjects who were able to return to the same activity level as before their injury (copers) and in those who were not (non-copers). DESIGN: The movement patterns of the injured leg of the coper and non-coper anterior cruciate ligament deficient subjects and the right leg of the control subjects were compared statistically. BACKGROUND: The forward lunge seems to be a less stressful test than the commonly used one-legged hop test, which makes it a possible tool for evaluating and comparing the functional performance of non-copers and copers. METHODS: The movement pattern of a forward lunge was analysed by using a two-dimensional inverse dynamics method. The electromyographic activity of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles were recorded. RESULTS: The non-copers moved more slowly and loaded the knee joint less than the copers and controls. The copers moved more slowly during the knee flexion phase but as fast as the controls during the knee extension. The EMG results suggest that the copers stabilized their knee joint by increasing the co-contraction of the hamstrings during the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the three groups' movement patterns could be quantified. The forward lunge test seems appropriate to discriminate between the knee function in coper and non-coper anterior cruciate ligament deficient subjects. RELEVANCE: Information about the performance of movements, which significantly load the knee joint in coper and non-coper anterior cruciate ligament deficient patients may contribute to a better understanding of dynamic knee joint stabilization, which is relevant in relation to the development of rehabilitation strategies.
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether differences in the knee joint movement pattern of a forward lunge could be quantified in healthy subjects and in anterior cruciate ligament deficient subjects who were able to return to the same activity level as before their injury (copers) and in those who were not (non-copers). DESIGN: The movement patterns of the injured leg of the coper and non-coper anterior cruciate ligament deficient subjects and the right leg of the control subjects were compared statistically. BACKGROUND: The forward lunge seems to be a less stressful test than the commonly used one-legged hop test, which makes it a possible tool for evaluating and comparing the functional performance of non-copers and copers. METHODS: The movement pattern of a forward lunge was analysed by using a two-dimensional inverse dynamics method. The electromyographic activity of the quadriceps and hamstring muscles were recorded. RESULTS: The non-copers moved more slowly and loaded the knee joint less than the copers and controls. The copers moved more slowly during the knee flexion phase but as fast as the controls during the knee extension. The EMG results suggest that the copers stabilized their knee joint by increasing the co-contraction of the hamstrings during the extension phase. CONCLUSIONS: Differences between the three groups' movement patterns could be quantified. The forward lunge test seems appropriate to discriminate between the knee function in coper and non-coper anterior cruciate ligament deficient subjects. RELEVANCE: Information about the performance of movements, which significantly load the knee joint in coper and non-coper anterior cruciate ligament deficient patients may contribute to a better understanding of dynamic knee joint stabilization, which is relevant in relation to the development of rehabilitation strategies.
Authors: Maureen K Dwyer; Samantha N Boudreau; Carl G Mattacola; Timothy L Uhl; Christian Lattermann Journal: J Athl Train Date: 2010 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 2.860
Authors: Sean P Flanagan; Man-Ying Wang; Gail A Greendale; Stanley P Azen; George J Salem Journal: J Strength Cond Res Date: 2004-08 Impact factor: 3.775